Tracing the Political

Depoliticisation, Governance and the State

Matt Flinders, Matt Wood, Flinders, Matt, Wood, Matt, Matt Flinders, Matt Wood

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781447326601
• eBook ISBN: 9781447334583
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Over the past two decades politicians have delegated many political decisions to expert agencies or 'quangos', and portrayed the associated issues, like monetary or drug policy, as technocratic or managerial. At the same time an increasing number of important political decisions are being removed from democratic public debate altogether, leading many commentators to argue that they are part of a 'crisis of democracy', marking the 'end of politics'.

Tracing the political uses a broad range of international case studies to chart the politicising and depoliticising dynamics that shape debates about the future of governance and the liberal democratic state. The book is part of the New perspectives in policy and politics series, and will be an important text for students of politics and policy, as well as researchers and policy makers.

CHAPTER TWO

Rethinking depoliticisation: beyond the governmental

Matt Wood and Matthew Flinders

Introduction

If the twentieth century witnessed the triumph of democracy, then the first decades of the twenty-first century appear to suggest that something has gone seriously wrong. This is reflected in a raft of post-millennium analyses that focus on the rise of ‘anti-politics’ and the challenges faced by contemporary democratic governance (for example, Rancière, 2006; Rosanvallon, 2008; Keane, 2009). Alongside this tide of rather bleak commentary exist a number of related debates concerning (inter alia) the decline of political participation and the rise of ‘disaffected democrats’ (see Norris, 2011); a shift to technocratic governance and models of decision making (notably in the wake of the global financial crisis) (Davis et al, 2012); and a more subtle set of concerns regarding the essence of democratic politics and the willingness or capacity of politicians to take inevitably unpopular decisions (see Flinders, 2012). These concerns have become crystallised into a set of terms (or clichés) – ‘post-democracy’, ‘the democratic winter’, ‘the end of politics’, ‘the democratic malaise’ – broadly capturing an interpretation of recent developments, but at the same time tending to tell us little about the roots or drivers, the patterns or forms, of these shifts in democratic culture. To an extent, recent literature on ‘depoliticisation’ in the field of governance research has begun to offer a more fine-grained analysis of these tensions and pressures (Burnham, 2001; Flinders and Buller, 2005). It is, however, the argument of this chapter that this literature offers too narrow a conceptual and empirical perspective to fully capture and analyse the complex and nuanced contours of this vast phenomenon that we might term the ‘depoliticised polity’, and that a broader cross-disciplinary framework is required to achieve this goal. Hence, just as Carl Schmitt (2007), whose work is examined in the introductory chapter to this special issue, argued for a broader conception of ‘the political’ going beyond ‘the state’, so we argue in a similar spirit (but in an admittedly very different way) for an expansive approach to studying depoliticisation, going beyond the ‘governmental’ approach predominant in the governance literature.

Although Marsh (2011, 48) highlights ‘depoliticisation’ as one of the most ‘interesting’ emergent concepts for analysing contemporary patterns of governance, scholars have tended to approach the topic through a fairly narrow conceptual lens (for example, Burnham 2001; Flinders and Buller, 2005; 2006; Kettell, 2008; Newman, 2009; James, 2010). Depoliticisation, here, is seen as a ‘mode of statecraft’ instituted by politicians to deflect blame and accountability from governments as decision making is placed at ‘one remove’ from the centre. Yet, as will be shown in this chapter, there is a range of cross-disciplinary literature that focuses attention on quite different, yet equally important (and frequently interrelated) pressures operating in the wider public and private spheres of society – what this chapter terms ‘societal’ and ‘discursive’ depoliticisation. These relate to, on the one hand, the role played by (for example) the media, special interest groups and corporations in shifting issues off the agenda of public deliberation – what we term, ‘societal depoliticisation’ – and (on the other hand) the ‘speech acts’ of individuals in the private and public arena that make certain issues appear to be ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ – here labelled, ‘discursive depoliticisation’. The boundaries between these two ‘faces’ is, as we acknowledge, sometimes blurred and contested, but at a broader level we argue that these two forms or modes of depoliticisation are both distinctive, interrelated, and to some extent even parasitical. Moreover, the core argument of this chapter – and to some extent the main argument of this special issue – is that any analysis of depoliticisation that focuses solely on institutions and a narrow conception of ‘the political’ will ultimately produce only largely cosmetic or shallow analyses. Put slightly differently, the aim of this chapter is to dig a little deeper and to begin to acknowledge and trace those deeper social and discursive shifts that frequently buttress or underpin institutional reforms and governmental decisions.

The most comprehensive analytical framework in this field is offered by Flinders and Buller (2006) and their dissection of a range of ‘principles, tactics and tools’. This identified three forms or ‘tactics’ vis-à-vis depoliticisation (institutional, rule-based, preference-shaping) and this has subsequently been applied in a range of studies in a range of policy areas (see, for example, Kettell, 2008; Rogers, 2009a; 2009b; Beveridge, 2012; Krippner, 2011, 146; Maman and Rosenheck, 2011, 16–17; Mishra, 2011, 159–63). Our critique of Flinders and Buller’s influential work, however, is that it set in train a form of intellectual path-dependency that over-emphasised a governmental state-centric approach, but under-emphasised the less visible but arguably more important discursive and societal dimensions of depoliticisation. As Laura Jenkins notes (2011, 159):

[d]espite offering some useful analytical pointers, this work is not without weaknesses and omissions… they simply do not provide an explicit conceptualisation of politics and the conception that they seem to rest upon is narrow. The discussion appears state-centred, essentially referring to the extension, concealment, alteration or reduction of state control… Buller and Flinders’ general lack of clarity on their conception of the political is particularly odd, given that the main emphasis in the piece is on definitional clarity surrounding the concept of depoliticisation.

The aim of this chapter is therefore to provide a broader analysis of the interrelationships between different conceptual and empirical perspectives on depoliticisation, as a first step towards a more sophisticated account of the ‘depoliticised polity’. This leads to a reappraisal, or at the very least, a reengagement with Colin Hay’s (and later Matthew Flinders’) analysis of forms of both politicisation and depoliticisation as functions, powers and responsibilities flowing between different political spheres across society (Hay, 2007; Flinders, 2008). Such a reappraisal leads to the identification of a conceptual and empirical horizon beyond a fairly narrow state-centric approach, but enables us to grasp how different forms of depoliticisation become almost self-sustaining, even parasitical. It is this broader ecosystem of depoliticising trends and tides which this chapter seeks to bring to the fore.

The challenge, however, lies in corralling several large, empirically and conceptually eclectic pools of literature. Put slightly differently, this is clearly a wide-ranging chapter and, like painting on a large canvas, this has required the use of a fairly broad brush and a sharp knife, in both analytical and empirical terms. Nevertheless, it is hoped that by ‘rethinking depoliticisation’ and placing this discussion within the contours of debates concerning the future of the state, this chapter will hopefully stimulate more scholarly interest in this topic, thereby filling in the detail and achieving a more fine-grained understanding (not least within the other contributions in this special edition). With this in mind this chapter is divided into three interrelated sections. The first section draws upon Hay’s Why we hate politics (2007) in order to provide the basis for a new ‘organising perspective’ on depoliticisation. The second and most substantive section then fleshes out this organising perspective by mapping the range of literature on depoliticisation, in order to identify intersections and interrelationships between three ‘faces’ of depoliticisation. The final section then reflects on the broader significance of this mapping exercise for the future study of depoliticisation, with a particular emphasis on cross-disciplinary eclecticism, as well as its relevance to contemporary debates concerning governance and the state.

Mapping depoliticisation

Any exercise in conceptual, geographical or scientific mapping is concerned as much with creating usable ‘mental models’ as it is with reflecting reality. Harry Beck’s iconic and well-known map of the London Underground provides an exceptional example of this craft, with its simple lines and colours which quickly convey needed and accurate information to the tired and rushed traveller. In essence, the argument of this chapter is that ‘rethinking depoliticisation’ requires the use of a new map or mental model in order to reveal interdependences between at least three primary forms of (or approaches to the study of) depoliticisation. A map, that is, which is sensitive to how ‘depoliticisation’, in the broader literature in political science and beyond, commonly refers to a rebalancing or a shift in the nature of governance relationships that involves not only the displacement of decisions from politicians, but the exercise of power by many non-state actors as well. In this regard Hay’s (2007) analysis of political disengagement provides a canvas on which to map out the contours of a new and more expansive conceptualisation of depoliticisation, due to his broad approach to politics, defined as ‘the realm of contingency and deliberation’, which he disaggregates into three distinct spheres (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Politicisation and depoliticisation

The immediate benefit of this approach is that it identifies forms of both politicisation and depoliticisation as mirror-image developments across a spectrum of public governance. To become politicised in this sense is associated with an issue becoming subject to public deliberation, decision making and contingency where previously it was not. ‘Accordingly, the most basic form of politicisation (Type 1) is associated with the extension of the capacity for human influence and deliberation’ Hay (2007, 81) notes, ‘which comes with disavowing the prior assignment of an issue – or issue domain – to the realm of fate or necessity’. This may involve the questioning of religious taboos or cultural assumptions that were previously held as sacrosanct, or the spillover effects of recent scientific and technological developments that offer new opportunities to control issues that were previously thought beyond human control (that is, fate). Issues may then become further politicised when they develop into the focus of a concerted pattern of public deliberation as if they have suddenly become identified as issues of collective, rather than individual or private, wellbeing. This is a politicisation of Type 2 and it too may take many forms (the consciousness-raising activities of feminists, environmentalists, anti-globalisation protestors or any other such group are essentially attempting to lift an issue into the public domain). This ‘lifting’ or politicisation of an issue may, in turn, propel it into the governmental sphere (Type 3) as it becomes the focus of legislative debates, new laws, the responsibility of government departments and similarly ‘governmental’ processes.

What this focus on politicisation reveals is the existence of sociopolitical gradations and historical patterns, in which the boundaries of each sphere have ebbed and flowed according to (inter alia) the government of the day, public attitudes and global trends. The dominant trend in recent decades, if the literature on the ‘unbundling’ of the state is to be believed (Pollitt and Talbot, 2004), has been on the depoliticisation of various formerly governmental tasks through a combination of delegation (Type 1), privatisation (Type 2) and denial (Type 3). Here, Type 1 depoliticisation focuses on the hiving off of functions away from elected politicians towards a complex range of extra-governmental organisations, para-statals and semi-independent bodies (collectively known as the sphere of ‘delegated’ or ‘distributed public’ governance). The conceptual emphasis here is not so much that the issue of concern has become any less political, in the sense of its impact on individuals or society, but that it has been transferred to a less obviously politicised arena. (Hence Flinders and Buller’s (2006) emphasis on ‘arena-shifting’). The next stage of depoliticisation involves a function or issue being displaced from the public (non-governmental) sphere to the private sphere, in the sense that it becomes a matter of private/ consumer choice. The representation of the issue of environmental degradation or unemployment in such a way that responsibility is seen to lie, not with politicians, business or society at large, but with the behaviour of individuals is, if successful, a form of depoliticisation (Type 2) (see, for example, Weiss and Wodak, 2000; Sharone, 2007). Hay notes that the evolution of societal value...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on contributors
• one: Depoliticisation, governance and the state: Matthew Flinders and Matt Wood
• two: Rethinking depoliticisation: beyond the governmental: Matt Wood and Matthew Flinders
• three: Depoliticisation, governance and political participation: Paul Fawcett and David Marsh
• four: Depoliticisation: economic crisis and political management: Peter Burnham
• five: Repoliticising depoliticisation: theoretical preliminaries on some responses to the American fiscal and Eurozone debt crises: Bob Jessop
• six: Rolling back to roll forward: depoliticisation and the extension of government: Emma Ann Foster, Peter Kerr and Christopher Byrne
• seven: (De)politicisation and the Father's Clause parliamentary debates: Stephen Bates, Laura Jenkins, and Fran Amery
• eight: Politicising UK energy: what 'speaking energy security' can do: Caroline Kuzemko
• nine: Global norms, local contestation: privatisation and de/politicisation in Berlin: Ross Beveridge and Matthias Naumann
• ten: Depoliticisation as process, governance as practice: what did the 'first wave' get wrong and do we need a 'second wave' to put it right?: Colin Hay
• conclusion: Thinking big: the political imagination: Matthew Flinders and Matt Wood